A frantic father contacted the Brosnan Risk Consultants Investigations Team seeking assistance regarding his 18-year-old son who threatened to leave the addiction rehabilitation program he had recently, voluntarily, entered into.
The program coordinator informed the father that it was not uncommon for clients to threaten to leave prior to the completion of their treatment program. Typically, they would return due to the remote location of the treatment center and the client’s lack of resources to obtain transportation out of the area. It was the Coordinator’s opinion that if the son did leave, it was best to let him leave with the anticipation he would soon return after discovering the lack of nearby accommodation and transportation, as well as lack of funds or a means of communication.
Brosnan Investigators advised the father that letting the son leave unsupervised was a bad idea, and arrangements were made to dispatch a team to the rehabilitation facility to monitor the son should he decide to leave.
The first investigator left Brosnan Headquarters at 2:30 a.m. and headed to the rehabilitation center, arriving in the area at approximately 7:00 a.m. Upon arriving, the investigator observed that the Center consisted of a large, sprawling college campus-type property in a very rural area.
Investigators knew that patients could not leave the center prior to 7:30 a.m., and that the son would be exiting from the main administration building. Surveillance was established and maintained on that building, and direct lines of communication were established between investigators and the parents of the son. The parents were in communication with the personnel at the Center in order to be immediately notified if/when their son left the facility.
At approximately 12:30 p.m., the father contacted investigators to advise that his son left the facility but did not leave from the administration building. The son was reported to be walking down a long driveway headed to the main road.
Investigators repositioned and, after a short search, located the son and began monitoring his actions as he continued to walk to the main road and away from the center. As directed by the parents, investigators continued to discreetly monitor the son in the hope that he would decide to return to the campus of his own accord.
The surveillance of the son was broken when he turned down a side street and disappeared from the view of investigators. He was subsequently located a short time later near a gas station attempting to solicit a ride. After what appeared to be several unsuccessful attempts at getting a ride, the son was observed speaking with an unknown male subject who was pumping gas. After a short conversation with this unknown male, the son got into the vehicle with him and drove off. Surveillance was established and maintained upon this vehicle as it drove from convenience store to convenience store, and in and out of small neighborhoods. It became apparent that the driver was aware that he was being followed, as he would continuously stop, slow down and make unnecessary U-turns. Fearing that the vehicle would be lost if it entered onto a nearby interstate or if the occupants entered a residence, Investigators contacted the father and advised him that it was necessary to intervene at this point rather than risk losing the ability to monitor his son. A short time later, the vehicle pulled into a small shopping center parking lot and was approached by several individuals who appeared to be attempting to sell something to the occupants of the vehicle. At this point, Investigators felt it was imperative to intervene and contact was made with the occupants of the vehicle.
After a great deal of discussion with the son and the vehicle operator, Investigators were able to convince the son that his best course of action would be to exit the vehicle and accompany investigators back to the rehabilitation center or to his home. He opted to return home. Arrangements were then made by Brosnan Investigators to transport the son to his home in New York.